Nirmal Singh vs Executive Magistrate, Amritsar and ors.

J.S. Sekhon, J.

Shri Har Bhupinder Singh, Executive Magistrate, Amritsar had initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. of 1983 on the report of the local police that there is a dispute between the two parties over the possession of plot located in Khasra No. 828 at Tilak Nagar, Shivala Bhaian, Amritsar. It is also mentioned in order Annexure P3 that crosssecurity proceedings had already been initiated against both the parties. Feeling aggrieved against that order, the second party namely Nirmal Singh had invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order Annexure P3 and further proceedings resulting the reform interalia on the ground that the Civil Court being already seized of the matter, initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is not called for.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record.

The perusal of copies Annexure P4 and Annexure P5 of the orders of Civil Court reveals that the present petitioner namely Nirmal Singh as well as the other party namely Dharam Singh and Gulzar Singh, respondents have filed suits for permanent injunction against each other regarding the plots in dispute. Both these parties had filed suits on 2781990. They have also filed the applications under JUDGMENT 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for refraining the other side from interfering with the respective possession of the property in dispute. Initially, the Civil Court in exparte order had granted the relief to the plaintiffs in each of the suits by directing the defendants not to disturb the plaintiff''s possession of plot except in due course of law but after hearing both the parties, the Civil Court had restrained Dharam Singh, and Gulzar Singh, present respondents from interfering in the possession of Nirmal Singh, present petitioner over the land in dispute. Whereas in the suit filed by Dharam Singh and Gulzar Singh, present respondents, Civil Court had vacated the exparte interim stay vide order Annexure P5. Thus under these circumstances it can be well inferred that the Civil Court has exfacie found Nirmal Singh petitioner in actual possession of the plot in dispute and there is no justification in allowing the continuity of controversy regarding actual possession of the property in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., especially when the latter proceedings were initiated on 6.9.1990 when the above referred two civil suits were already, pending before the concerned court. In similar situation, the Apex Court had also remarked in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. & ors., 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 278 (SC) : 1985(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 521, that continuation of the parellel Civil and Criminal proceedings is not justifiable.

Consequently for the reasons recorded above the impugned order Annexure P3 as well as the resultant proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. are quashed by accepting this petition.

JUDGMENT accordingly.